Join Bridge Winners
Bridge Directing Question

I have a question about a recent director's decision, and I can't imagine it was the right way to handle it.

This was a 9 and a half table game with an E/W sitout when they got to table 10.   But the director failed to make any announcement about the movement, or that there was a sitout.  So at the end of the first round, table one moved their boards to the last table they thought was in use (there was nobody seated at table 10, as E/W didn't sit a their sitout table (as most e/w don't, at least at this club.  They go outside, sit out on couch and talk, whatever), which was table 9.   The E/W at table 8 went to table 9, and everyone started playing.  At the end of the round, the director came over to table 9 and told us that we had played the wrong boards (with no N/S at table 10, the boards that started there just stayed there).  The then told us that we would have no plays on BOTH the boards we had just played, and the boards we were supposed to play.

a)  I don't see why we wouldn't have both used the scores for the boards we played, since neither of us had played them before, or could play them again.

b) For round 3, the team at table 9NS, who now couldn't play the boards they were supposed to play, since they had played them in round two, had, in effect, a sit out.   So did EW pair 8, now at table 10, the sit-out table.   If the director wasn't going to count the scores of the boards actually played, couldn't he have at least had pair 9NS and 8EW share boards with table 7 and now play the boards they were supposed to be playing in the first place?  At least this way there wouldn't be SIX no plays AND and sitout for the EW pair?    

I don't know if there are rules regarding this, but I really see no reason not to count the boards actually played, as neither pair had played them before.  But if not, option b seems to make the most sense.

Any thoughts from those in the know?

46 Comments
Getting Comments... loading...
.

Bottom Home Top